Sunday, January 14, 2007

Paula Zahn Cracks the Case

Paula Zahn Now [is] an issues-driven program offering live newsmaker interviews and meaningful discussion and analysis from an exclusive roster of contributors.--CNN homepage

Throughout this case, I’ve tried to stay abreast of the major cable news programs that have provided coverage—the Abrams Report in the initial months, Hannity&Colmes and Greta more recently. Friday night, however, I watched “analysis” of Mike Nifong’s recusal from CNN’s Paula Zahn Now.

To discuss the event, Zahn invited Joe Madison, an African-American radio talk show host from Washington, D.C.; syndicated columnist Miguel Perez, whose website archive suggests that he specializes in immigration policy; and Michael Gross, whom the CNN transcript described as a “constitutional attorney.”

As far as I could determine, none of the three had previously commented in public on the case, nor was there anything in their background to suggest particular expertise on the matter.

The group produced a several-minutes discussion that made the DurhamHerald-Sun look fair and balanced by comparison. Prosecutorial misconduct? The importance of due process and authorities following proper procedure? Concerns about making legal decisions for political reasons? The guests had no interest.

What occurred? “These white guys hired a black woman. You are going to tell me that, in—out in Duke [sic], you couldn’t have found a white stripper, a white prostitute? They were there—race was a factor.” (I heard the talk show host say “pretty white stripper” during the live broadcast, but the adjective didn’t appear in the transcript.)

Did Madison know that the captain asked for white dancers? Apparently not.

Did Zahn? Apparently not.

Had either been paying attention to the case since mid-April? Apparently not.

Zahn did, however, aggressively note that she would broadcast live from Durham on Tuesday, where she would be moderating a forum on race.

“Constitutional attorney” Gross provided even more outrageous commentary than did Madison. Yes, he conceded, the accuser had changed her story—but “Abner Louima’s story changed,” too. (Louima was the Haitian immigrant who was brutally assaulted by two New York City police officers.)

In Gross’ version of events, the players not only wanted black dancers—but they “hired a known prostitute for sex(!).” Apparently unaware of the latest batch of motions in the case or even Reade Seligmann’s public announcement of his minute-by-minute alibi in a May 1 motion, Gross asserted, “We haven’t heard from any of them as to what they did. We have only heard: I didn’t do it. It wasn’t me. I didn’t rape her.”

The “constitutional attorney” did express his concern that a “rush to judgment” had occurred—against the “one victim, who is all alone, who has got a lousy reputation.”

Compared to his fellow panelists, Perez seemed like a member of the Supreme Court bar. He admitted that many people seemed to think that Nifong based his actions on political motives, but downplayed the idea. “How could he take such a weak case, or a case that really wasn’t all together,” Perez mused, “and try to make political hay out of it?”

None of the panelists appeared aware that the case emerged several weeks before a hotly contested primary in which Nifong needed black votes. Zahn gave no evidence that she understood this issue either.

In a case where we’ve seen copious irresponsible media speculation, Zahn’s Friday program stood out. The CNN personality gave a forum to guests who clearly knew next to nothing about the case, and then allowed them to make misstatements of fact and outrageous comparisons while ignoring the unprecedented event of a DA’s forced recusal because of ethics allegations. Viewers might have expected this sort of “commentary” on March 29, when the Group of 88 started putting together its ad. But surely we can expect more now, as new facts have emerged.

Zahn had sparingly covered Duke matters for months, but she did feature several segments in the spring. At that time, she often welcomed the ready-to-slander Wendy Murphy, who complained in May about how people didn’t care “about the privacy rights of the Duke rape victim, who faced a subpoena by the defense team [that was] truly invasive. I guess we only care about privacy rights for criminals, huh?” The previous month, the former prosecutor (incorrectly) informed CNN viewers that Kim Roberts claimed the accuser “was stone-cold sober when they got there . . . I don’t think there’s any evidence that she was either drugged or under the influence of alcohol.” Zahn offered no correction.

CNN changes its format every six months or so, but in the network’s current approach, Zahn and Anderson Cooper (on two hours later) function as anchors, heavy on personal empathy and good looks, but light on overt editorializing, at least on controversial matters.

Yet, over and over again in the spring, Zahn sounded like a paid mouthpiece for Nifong’s office.

She regularly did whatever she could to frame discussions of the case in ways highly unfavorable to the players. For instance:

On May 17, she spoke of “the DukeUniversity rape case raising new concerns about college athletes, drinking, and now hazing.” In fact, the hazing case involved the women’s soccer team at Northwestern; even Nifong has never suggested that the Duke events were hazing.

On April 21, Zahn celebrated Kim Roberts’ mercurial public remarks, contending that “what she is saying appears to back up the charge of rape.”

A few days before, she played up the class angle. Commenting onthe arrests of Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty, Zahn informed viewers that the pair “came to Duke from upscale suburbs in [sic] New York City and elite private schools.”

In mid-May, Zahn gushed at the laughably pro-Nifong judge Ron Stephens, who lectured attendees on courtroom decorum but allowed a New Black Panthers member who threatened Reade Seligmann to remain in court. “Quite a display there in the courtroom,” Zahn enthused, “from that no nonsense judge.”

A fierce critic of the defense attorneys, Zahn seems to have viewed her role as standing up for the “defenseless” accuser. On April 12, she detected what “seems to be a concerted effort by friends of the defense to continue to trash this alleged victim.”

The evidence? Because “you don’t hear her described as a student or as a mom,” but as “the stripper.” Zahn did not protest when Madison or Gross referred to the accuser as a prostitute by December; that they smeared the players seemed to satisfy her.

When the defense asked for the accuser’s medical records in late April, she opined, “It’s more clear than ever that the defense in the Duke rape case is going to continue to attack the credibility of the accuser. That comes as no surprise to anyone.” In a leading question to the eager to oblige Pam Bondi, Zahn inquired, “Is this just sliming the victim again?” (Zahn did not say why the person who once was the “alleged victim” was now clearly a “victim.”) The CNN host couldn’t figure out what such mental health records “could have to do . . . with her credibility today.”

In fact, as we know now, the request was wholly legitimate—Judge Smith turned over much of what was requested, under seal, last month.

Zahn also repeated the Nifong post-March 29 mantra that DNA wasn’t really important to the case. On April 24, she observed, “I know you don’t need it, necessarily, to convict . . . anybody. You have got tons . . . of people sitting in jail right now convicted for rape that never had a DNA match.” Or, as Nifong might have said, “the good old-fashioned way” is the way to go. (Zahn repeated this assertion frequently in her early broadcasts.)

Zahn’s most troubling performance came on April 17, when she blandly dismissed Joe Cheshire’s assertion that no assault occurred. Dripping with incredulity, the host wondered how Cheshire could “explain the woman’s injuries, particularly some of the internal injuries.” Zahn neither then nor thereafter clarified to which “internal injuries” she was referring.

“I want to know,” she lectured Cheshire, “why you think this woman, who you claim to know an awful lot about, would have made up this story . . . and turned her life upside down.” In fact, as we know now, the accuser “made up this story” as she was on the verge of being involuntarily committed.

After Cheshire’s video feed terminated, Zahn dismissed the attorney’s comments with an editorial remark of her own. “The DA,” Zahn assured CNN viewers, “would not be proceeding with this case if he didn’t believe that this alleged victim had been raped. There has been a lot of talk about the DNA evidence not being linked to any of the players. The DA has said repeatedly he has other evidence that will prove that this young woman was raped.”

This is the person who’s going to moderate a forum on race in Durham? Tuesday night, perhaps Duke students should make clear to Zahn that they expect higher journalistic standards when their classmates’ lives are at stake.

I fully expect the empty headed windbag Zahn to be served with a civil complaint for her libelous comments on the 3 real victims in this case. Her affirmative defense might be that she is as dumb as a block of wood.

I just sent the show an email reagarding Mr. Johnson's criticism and challenged them to attempt to book him on her show :p

Contact form is here:

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/paula.zahn.now/

You know, there is a really dangerous problem with our media now. I think it's so bad and (leftward) biased now that our civilization is actually at serious risk as a result because of a misinformed or propagandized public on a whole host of issues.

I follow the UF Gators alot on the internet and otherwise. We sports fans when things don't go our way don't pay nearly as much attention as when they do go the way we want.

What you see at CNN and several other places is similar to how sports fans react. CNN's staff and many others obviously have a world view that gives them a rooting interest in this case. The side that things are not going well for tends to not pay very close attention to the details.

It is sad that the courts in this country are becoming so politicized that people have a rooting interest in the out comes of trials. But alas there are fewer and fewer people interested in just the truth from a trial. I would guess this is an out growth of this movement towards group rights and group concerns over individual rights.

Esquire is correct. Let the pathetic Zahn and CNN defend her slander and libel in court. It should be interesting. How can such mindless anchors and their producers be allowed to put such garbage on national television?

This is to be expected. Zahn's pushing her special on "intolerance" or "racist" or something which is coming up soon. She's trying to stay relevant. Hard job, considering that she's not a marquee face and doesn't want to work as hard as Anderson Cooper or new-age reporters of his ilk.

This is why I only watch Fox news now, and skip CNN and the NY Times. I'm not stupid enough to not know that Fox is slanted to the Right, often too much so for me, but I still find the reporting overall to be more honest and fact-based.

If left-wing media want to bet the farm on a losing horse...more power to 'em. Objective reality, independent of ideology, exists in this case: no rape occurred. Claiming the opposite, in the face of such voluminous contradictory evidence, makes everything they do and say extremely suspect. How can you trust them? You can't. Whom can you trust? The ones that aren't telling you that up is down, black is white, O.J. is Innocent, and Reade Seligmann is able to be in two places at once.

I happened to see this show getting ready for bed the other night. It's much like KC describes it. I'm screaming at the TV and my wife is like, what is wrong with you?

Joe Madison went on and on about the fact that there must be some reason these "boys" wanted black strippers. The implications were obvious. He really had no clue about this clue. Neither did any of them actually...but Joe Madison really stood out most of all.

This guy is a complete boob. He just stood in this group and blabbed one false hood after another. He believed it all too.

KC's post explains the show perfect, but probably doesn't do justice to how big an idiot this Madison was. Wow..I was shocked. I've already e-mailed this rock head a few case facts.

Greetings from north-western Canada. I first encountered your site, Professor Johnson, last Wednesday, and subsequently spent a dozen hours reading about the history of this case, here and at linked sites, and in the comments. I should like to express my appreciation to you, sir, and some of your commenters, for your excellent work on this matter.

12:18 above wrote, "It is sad that the courts in this country are becoming so politicized that people have a rooting interest in the out comes of trials".

Here are two English words you folks may find useful in this context.

Barratry is the act or practice of bringing repeated legal actions solely to harass.

Champerty is the practice of a third party participating in a lawsuit in order to share in the benefits.

These words have strict definitions in legal jurisdictions, but when you look at them in plain English, and when you look at who the evidence to date most strongly suggests are the bad guys in this story, from the alleged victim, to the police and the public attorneys, to the Gang of 88 and the main stream media, one or both of those two words will usually cover the matter.

"...the idea that the CIA may have abetted drug dealing in theblack community is "painful but believable." Joe Madison, an NAACP national board member, has dedicated his Washington talk show to the issue and has held news conferences to bring the issue into the national spotlight. He also has been arrested in protestsstaged in reaction to the reports.

Her [Zahn] affirmative defense might be that she is as dumb as a block of wood.

Her affirmative defenses would be the same as NYT's libel of Steven Hatfill. And will most likely be dismissed like Hatfill too, so as to protect the media's time honored tradition of libel disguised as news.

As a resident of metro Atlanta and a graduate of Emory Bus School many years ago I am used to "observing" CNN's slanted reporting. I spend much time at Atlanta Hartsfield Jackson (how's that for PC)where the TV's only show CNN and I also know several folks who work at CNN, some on the air. Other than Glenn Beck, whom I don't know, the rest follow in the wake of the mouth, AKA Ted. Anyway I just sent Ms. Zahn a note begging her to not embarrass herself again on a topic in which she is clueless.

I've changed the channel for years whenever that lightweight Paula Zahn comes on. Earlier this week I happened to leave it on only to see that she had invited back several panelists from a show from last Friday or so on which the topic was the adoption of Chinese baby girls. The panel discussion on the initial show (of which they showed several clips) was ignorant and featured comments that were both tasteless and racist in reference to parents of these babies shopping for babies with a certain look or cachet vs. adopting African-American babies here at home, and comments about nobody wanting the black babies up for adoption, etc. What made it even worse was that they were cracking jokes the whole time instead of trying to have a serious discussion. It was so sophomoric and utterly ignorant that it was embarrassing. Needless to say, the show was apparently inundated with e-mails complaining about the terrible show, so Paula had to do some scrambling to try to get some of the panelists (one of whom I could swear was this fellow Madison) to come back on to recant some of their rants. They made some vague nod in that direction but essentially stood by their comments.

When I saw that she is scheduled to host a show on the Duke case on Tuesday, without even knowing of her earlier coverage (because of my reflex reaction in turning her off at all times), I immediately thought of the hash she made of this other issue and predicted she'd do the same on Tuesday.

I for one plan on watching her CNN town meeting. It should be hilarious. Zahn is one of the stupidest "news hosts" going. The entertainment of her listening cluelessly to the rants of the pro-Nifong lynch mob pack - then finally - of course - determining what is needed is more 'healing', 'KA-LOZE-URE', 'moving on', and addressing the "unmet needs of the poor" in Durham and of course, "fighting white male racism and the horrible, horrible college kegger culture."

Should be 1st rate entertainment with the plus of Zahn proving once again what an ignorant asshole she is.

Esquire - Jerri: Admit it, how fun would it be to face off against Zahn or Murphy in Trial? Don't you watch these people and actually wonder if they attended law school?

Zahn is dumber than a sack of rocks. Woman has difficulty just remembering to breath when she talks. No way she went to law school. I think she was communications with cello-playing..

Murphy is smart. A fact obviously obscured by her not being very smart for a lawyer, and ummm, and those little personal traits like being a psycho-bitch, vile misandry, preening egotism, and being a pathological liar.

New England School of Law, professor. Obviously another place to beware of sending your kids to school at.

Pretty much, save for Fox news, sums up MSM reporting, both as to the nature of it, and the biases which animate that nature.

All of this reminds quite a bit of the heyday of Pravda, when Russians...errr..."Soviet comrades" were subjected to a Russia-in-Wonderland fantasy world of reportage where left was right and right was left.

As some Russian friends from my days in NYC years ago noted, Russians were one-up over most Americans when it came to how they processed their own mainstream, dominant media.

Russians knew their MSM were inveterate liers, but pretended otherwise on numberless occasions in order to keep their jobs, their apartments, their butts out of jail.

Whereas with America and its Americans, seemingly anyway from the Russian point-of-view, while the MSM lied almost as consistently and as uncredibly as did their Pravda counterparts, Americans seemed to genuinely believe much of what they were told, while pretending to disagree at times for the sake of American notions of free speech and a robust public dialog.

I may surmise for distribution here the Russian view of all this:Who really is the bigger fool: he who pretends to believe what he knows is nonsense (a la Russians), or he who actually ends up believing what he pretends to doubt or question (a la Americans).

The good news for this country is that Americans are increasingly neither pretenders nor believers: we're increasingly as a people using blogging and other means of open-ended access to information to discount MSM's nonsense while constructing the real story through alternative sources which, unlike in the old Soviet Union, won't land us in jail...for now anyway.

We have here the fate of but three young men. Would you trust CNN, or any other national news org., to help you figure out if Iraq is a stupid quagmire or just one battle in a decades long struggle against extremists or if global warming is really the end of civilization to be reversed by halving out living standards? Almost all my news now comes from bloggers in the battle. It is very time consuming to find the real deal among them and I resent it. But thank God for the KCs shining a light.

The broadcast should guarantee the change of venue once the motion is amended to include it. Assuming the charges are not dropped first, of course. I cannot imagine that would be good thing for either Zahn or CNN.

Zahn has always struck me as a lightweight, and now she proves it. The "sell" on her when she went to primetime was that she was sexy! Surely you all remember that. Makeover, etc. Maybe she wasn't sexy enough to interest a certain athlete in college -- just a theory, but she does seem to have an agenda in re: the Duke lacrosse case and something against these particular college athletes.

Look, all you have to do is check out PZ's academic pedigree: "she attended Stephens College on a music scholarship."

Key words: 1. "attended," not is a graduate of.2. "Stephens College." I am a midwestern woman by birth and knew girls who went to Stephens. Believe me, Stephens girls didn't have much going on between their ears. They couldn't get into anyplace better, and could care less, but their parents wanted them to have some kind of post-secondary education. It was charitably known as a "finishing school," or what our kids now call a "housewife's college."

It is no great surprise that CNN with ''How can I destroy Israel today" Blitzer and "Let's release some national secrets today" Keller at the Times that these are no longer institutions but prostitutions.

So I watch Fox, which is much too right wing for my taste. But what else is there.

Abner Louima's story only changed in very minor ways, which is not unusual for people who have been the victims of violent crimes. Very few people (unless they're lying) tell exactly the same story each and every time. There was considerable other evidence backing up Louima's story -- including extensive physical injuries that were consistent with his account of what happened to him.

The same cannot be said for Crystal Mangum in this case. Her "stories" are so completely different, and so wildly contradictory, that no reasonable person could conclude that she is telling the truth. Add to that the fact that her stories are contradicted by dozens of other witnesses (including witnesses who have absolutely no reason to lie for the LAX players), by the DNA evidence, and most importantly, by the medical evidence. Crystal Mangum claims (at least in some versions) that she was gang raped and beaten by three large men. She claims she was choked, hit, and kicked, and that she fought back so violently that she broke off her fake fingernails. Yet the medical examinations found not one single sign of a violent rape, and not one single indication of a violent beating and/or struggle anywhere on her body.

This is not a case where there is reasonable doubt. This is a case where there is overwhelming evidence of innocence.

Abner Louima had horrific injuries to back up his claims. Crystal had NO injuries.

What is amazing is that after all this time, a five-minute review of the case would have sufficed to gain information that they seem to have ignored. I'm glad I don't have TV reception, as cable news is an even greater wasteland than I could have imagined.

Do we here in the blog-sphere have enough clout to force the truth to be heard?

I think this analysis provides the perfect text for that full-page ad we have been threatening to run.AND IT SHOULD BE RUN IN THE NY TIMES, USA TODAY, WASHINGTON POST...pick one...the biggest circulation we can get.

We should criticize these people and their organizations in the strongest terms for their lack of knowledge of the facts, false statements, and outright lies which many consider deliberate and slanderous.

We should condemn their shoddy and malicious work. We should name names and network programs. Start with Wendy Murphy and Nancy Grace and Georgia Goslee. Add Paula Zahn, Anderson Cooper and CNN. Hold the NY Times accountable for Duff Wilson's abyssmal coverage. Who else? The Durham Herald. Bob Ashley, though he is barely heard compared to these national voices.

Name (and shame) them all.

Put their names in print as irresponsible and uniformed, at best, and liars at worst. Refute their lies and replace them with facts...lifted directly from transcripts and court documents.

And we...how many thousands of us are there?...should boycott those programs and the products of their sponsors until they are held accountable to the truth in this matter.

Collin, Reade, Dave and their families deserve our support when others shamelessly and knowingly continue to attack them and spew ignorant and malicious lies.

These boys and their families are decent people and do not deserve any of this. They are demonstrably innocent of the charges brought against them. They certainly do not deserve the continuing degradation and slander that spew forth form those who have access to the airwaves.

If people and networks and wnews organizations continue to present lies as truth, there should be consequences.

A couple of more points. One, the same people who say, dont feel sorry for the privileged white boys, also slander them based upon second and third hand facts, and also made up stuff. As such, they prove that the indictments caused permanent damage and irreperable harm. If the three boys had not been indicted, nobody would be saying this about them and even if they are cleared completely, somebody will free to say that "something happened." If the case went to jury, and the jury came back in ten minutes, and the jury came out and hugged the defendants, the same clowns would still say, something happened, it doesn't prove they are innocent.

Second, it shows that the facts change to meet the agenda without any regard to the truth. If it helps the narrative for her to be a "stripper" a stripper she is. If it helps to be a student, a student she is. If it helps to be a prostitute, a prostitute she is.

Third, nobody even explains why all forty lacrosse players would lie. Is the assumption that all of them are so immoral that they all would cover up a rape. Why assume that.

i thinks she is pretty hot. if she would just cooperate and be window dressing instead of wanting to be taken seriously we'd all appreciate it. maybe she could tan and oil up her legs like couric used to.

maybe the next crooked DA will be smart and engage in something parallel to the following - from today's BBC. just need a bad quality video, an actor who is 6''5, a boy with maybe a mustache, another actor who isn't there, and a whore.

Not tough to produce.

"Egypt seizes al-Jazeera reporter

Al-Jazeera is one of the Middle East's most influential TV channelsA journalist working for Arabic TV news channel al-Jazeera has been arrested in Egypt for allegedly fabricating videos of police torturing suspects."

I went to high school with Paula Zahn in Naperville, Il. Back in the 70’s, Paula was a sweet girl. Totally controlled by her mother. She was a finalist in the Miss Teen America contest; her talent was playing Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves on her cello. When she returned ( triumphant) to Naperville Central HS, we had Paula Zahn Day to celebrate her accomplishments. She was sweet but SHELTERED and trust me, she had NO experience with race relations. There wasn’t ONE African American Person at good ol’NCHS. But we suburbanites were very good at wearing our bleeding hearts on our sleeves. Yet, it seemed to me, if we were so concerned about the plight of our brethren in Cabrini Green, why didn’t we bus them to our classrooms to provide them with a better opportunity? So, Paula Zahn is indeed full of HOT AIR. She does not have a clue. I know well the subdivision she came from, Cress Creek, (country club and all) and I know that NONE of us in Naperville had any idea what REAL race relations were all about. I however moved south when I was 17 and spent my senior year in high school in a very Southern City in Georgia. Let me tell you, I was amazed at what the real world is like and you know what, it was fascinating. People who have never lived with race relations, should not be allowed to hold race relation panels. Additionally, the NEW SOUTH is not the OLD SOUTH. The traditional southern BIGOT is very old now, many are in their late 70’s early 80’s and 90’s. They are dying. People in the SOUTH are not your stereotypical bigot. Things aren’t like they once were. The Paula Zahn’s of this world want to fan flames that are maybe dying embers, they don’t want the fire to go out. Paula and the gang of 88. It disgusts me and makes me sad for my home here in Greensboro, where I have lived for 25 years. A lovely community with many lovely people, black, white, you name it.

KC..when are you going to give up that liberal mentality and become a conservative..don't you get it?? I would love for you to do a study of all the people you contest, i.e. the guest speakers, attorneys, hosts, etc. etc., I would say that 99.9 are liberal democrats..that must say something! Nifong really reminds me of the Clintons..do what they like, when they like, all for their personal gain..and then when they get called out on it, all they make is derogatory remarks...sound familiar?? KC vote republican...democrats and liberals are intellectually lazy!!!!!

8:46 is absolutely right. Zahn is the answer to those who ask "what permanent harm has been done to the accused?" No matter how ludicrous these charges are shown to be, the mere fact of the accusation will keep Zahn et al. convinced of the LAX players' guilt... or at least pretending to be.

Really, though, what can one expect? That Zahn would run a segment called "New developments in the Duke case: yet more proof that I, Paula Zahn, am an irrelevant idiot"?

CNN knows what it wants in Durham Tuesday night, and they know they will get it. They want a mob of screaming black people displaying their incredible ingorance and childlike behavior. I am going to set the over/under on pro-defense panelists being interrupted by black racists(panelists and non-panelists) during the "show" at 38. What CNN wants demonstrates their own racism of low expectations of black people. They want the black attendees at the forum to perform like a circus act, and that is exactly what they'll get.

Check out Long Beach, CA. On Halloween, a group of African Americans boys and girls beat up three Anglo girls, fracturing one of their skull. An African American Good Samaritan stopped them and saved the girls' lives. Another African American who testified for the prosecution had her car demolished by gangsters. Both have had death threats.

The leader of the local NAACP is acting like the thugs are the "victims" because they might have to go to jail.

I don't think our nation will ever recover from our systemic stupidity based on political correctness.

Here is a clear Hate Crime, only when the races are reversed, no one cares.

The issue isn't Paula Zahn, is it? If we've learned anything about the MSM it's they're just selling ratings. The real question is what part does CGM's enablers and Duke play in this. The wording of the puff piece says it will occur in Durham, not Duke.

I am guessing this is the idea of the enablers to buy sympathy for the accuser and stir up local racial problems - why else go to Durham? This case is going to stay hot for another year. WB

As I see it, whoever arranged for the strippers was naive enough to call a number in Durham. If the call had been to Chapel Hill or Raleigh, things turn out very differently -- a total non-event.

It seems the strippers were at least somewhat late to arrive and they were clearly not what was expected. Despite this, they were given equal employment opportunity.

One of the two was so messed up that she could not perform. No one in this state is attractive.Whoever paid $800 for this really got ripped off, there's really no other way to put it. How much do you suppose the FA earned for the tricks that left all the DNA they did find?

Despite this provocation, the worst that seems to have happened is some name-calling -- that went both ways. Without minimizing this, it just doesn't come close to what some are still intimating "happened".

One can argue that the names were hurtful, that hiring strippers is immoral, that this isn't what we expect of college students, etc.However, there is zero basis for the charge that the team ordered strippers on the basis of race or ordered prostitutes.

I'd be willing to bet that one could easily find a similar party at NC Central University, if one chose to look. Anyone want to take a bet that there's no prosecution and no press tour if a similar complaint were to be made relating to one of these parties? Can you say "double standard"?

The thing that really bothers me is that numbers of people don't even hesitate to directly make such unfounded assertions, yet no one seems willing to even raise theories that are so much less speculative on the actions of the DA, the motives of the FA, etc. This is even on FOX, although there has been much less of the former of late. Who has the power here? What are people afraid of?

I still hear people making the argument that only the defense side of things is coming out (never heard this complaint about the prosecution when there was no defense, only Nofing pandering for votes). I've read the defense motions and the most damning evidence is simply the FA interview transcripts. Yes, these are being cited in defense motions but the words and the inconsistencies are those of CGM -- and those who coached her.

I have clear views on what is going on with the press and with politicians, but this post is long already...

Paula is a victim of feminist propaganda which promotes that false claims of rape is rare and a woman should be believed on her word alone, for even a prostitute is held in more hirer moral regard than any man.

While other studies have found that almost 50% of rape accusations are false, main stream media with people like Paula Z, Nancy G, Wendy Murphy, etc… gladly swallow and repeat the feminist mantra being as fact.

All have grown quiet about the Duke Rape case lately, in hopes that it will all fade away.

A final transmission to Ashley and everyone at the Herpetic Scum entitled:

"This was your hoax, Bob. Own it"---------------------Bob-

Read your disgraceful editorial today.

http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsedits/56-808802.cfm

Let me get this straight. So now you are trying to blame the whole thing on Nifong?

Bob, don't you remember that it was a Durham GROUP project, this selling of the hoax (c'mon, Bob, I _know_ you remember we discussed it nearly every day back in the day)

All that huffing and puffing by you, the pot-bangers and the black politicians of Durham.

All that hot air and talk of castration. All that self-righteous blather from the mob about "never again!!"

And all those lies and misrepresentation by you and your newspaper day-after-day (about gay-bashing, about coverups by players, on and on) all in the service of a greater good. And what good was that, Bob?

Promoting injustice and white liberal paternalism?

So I remember all that. But I am a bit confused by the last line of your piece: who among the pitchfork army of Durham needs to "begin to heal"

-Surely not NCCU student government leader Chan Hall who said he just wanted to see the Duke students prosecuted "whether it happened or not". Or NCCU faculty like L Smith Ramocki who expressed similar views.

*They don't need healing; they just needs to be called what they are, garden-variety racists.

-Surely not the officers of the Trinity Park Neighborhood Association- rich whites who hatched a scheme to force Duke to sell them rental properties they could flip for profit by enlisting the DPD in an illegal crackdowns on Duke student renters.

*The TPNA doesn't need healing, they just need to be sued out of existence.

-Surely not your writer John Stevenson who is so corrupt that he calibrates every sentence about Durham justice for its monetary impact on his lawyer kickback scheme.

-Surely not City Manager Patrick Baker, who, when he wasn't bungling civic services or covering up his lead-weight incompetence, was interfering in a police investigation to hide his own late-night fun.

-And surely not you, Bob Ashley, who as late as June '06 was daily propagandizing that Nifong "through no fault of his own" (yes, your words, Bob) was somehow doing Durham's bidding.

I saw her prrgram and immediately had to vent on DIW. It was so frustrating to hear these 'experts' talking about a case they CLEARLY did not know anything about or the very least been updated about. Maryland Esquire calmed me down but I was ready to scream...e-mails to CNN about her should follow...

Didn't Richard Jewel (the man that both the FBI and the media tried to pin the Atlanta Olympic Park bombing on in '96) win judgments from various media companies? I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on this blog, but if he did sue and prevail against some of the MSM, then doesn't that put morons like Paula Zahn in some sort of civil liability jeopardy? You people are so smart!

We cannot answer your question because we do not know how long it will take for the Attorney General's staff to conduct a reasonable review of the case and prepare for the hearing. I suspect the judge will be willing to give the state more time if the AG asks for it. At that point, lots of people's schedules become relevant.

Cash has finally made it to National TV. This is awful, but will he get a new black outfit to hide the fat? Bictoria Peterson led a rally of two (2)to support Nifong on the courthouse steps.I emailed PZ to remember Cash lives in white Cary - not black Durham.o

How about the rape of the Central Park joggerWhy isn't Wise (who works for Al Sharpton)speaking out...he was sent to prison for the Central Park jogger rape after confessing, but was released 21 years later when DNA evidence was proved to be someone else's, not hisIsn't that what we have here...the DNA is someone else's not the DNA of the Lax players

We need a law that prevents Mass Media organizations from propegating lies, I am fully aware of free speech rules, but mass deception is not free speech, and we need to stop it. When major news organizations allow people to fabricate news and pass it off as true, it can only do harm, and needs to be stopped. I am not a lawyer, but I could only hope she has some liability here.

You wrote, "Cash has finally made it to National TV. This is awful, but will he get a new black outfit to hide the fat?"

Why do you (and others) post such insults in this forum? Mr. Michaels' appearance has nothing to do with the merits of his editorials-cum-articles.

People unfamiliar with the details of the Hoax regularly discover D-i-W, and read through the comments.

Why would an anonymous poster be willling to give the impression that anti-hoaxers believe that disparaging personal remarks help address the issues?

The nicest answers suggest a call for more restraint on the part of commenters who are genuinely angry about the Hoax. Why help the faux commenters who are all too glad to help portray 'us' as crummy people?

To Cash Michaels (who reads these forums): I, for one, regret such ad hominem attacks. I hope you recognize that anon 11:25am's remarks don't represent the stance of most people who disagree with you.

I am astonished by how many of these comments express astonishment concerning the absolutely unastonishing Ms. Zahn. Just imagine for a moment that you are not an underemployed lawyer in Maryland or a rebarbative old fart in South Carolina or the guy whose appetite for the peripheral and the irrelevant is so great as to lead him to inform us that the word “Zahn” in German means “tooth” in English. Imagine instead that you are a journalist, publisher, producer, or editor. Which of the follow six headlines, in your opinion, is likely to gain you readers, viewers, or for that matter advertisers?

"Paula is a victim of feminist propaganda which promotes that false claims of rape is rare and a woman should be believed on her word alone, for even a prostitute is held in more hirer moral regard than any man."

In libel law, even if one is a public figure or public official, one can win a judgment if the journalist engaged in presenting "news" that either was obviously false or was the result of "reckless disregard" for the truth.

The information is out there, and it is as easy to obtain as clicking on a link. Not even Liefong is making the claims that Paula Zahn has made. Thus, if the families wish to sue, there can be a case against CNN.

One thing is for sure: the "talking heads" version of the news is a dumping ground for idiots and losers. I am so glad I am not tempted to watch this crap.

People need to realize how much is done to garner votes. We have the same things going on across the entire electoral process as we saw play out in Durham, it is just that there is a somewhat higher level of sophistication. This case is being manipulated to this end.

In my opinion, identity groups of nearly all stripes trade influence (votes) for the personal gain of those in control, and are even able to influence people to vote against their own self-interests.

Democracy depends on an independent press and civic discourse, so that things may be debated in a civil manner and those who vote may do so informed of issues that are truly important and that transcend.

What we have is a press that is after ratings and that is not independent -- in most instances, it is a tool, deployed to manipulate, obfuscate, and garner votes. Harm accrues to society very broadly and we all pay. There are those who benefit far in excess of the costs but these are few. Many people believe they are benefiting by things that are shown to them or done in their name but this is often shortsighted or outright wrong.

Now, there is a hate crime. Perhaps Karla Holloway will tell us that the three perps were all racially and sexually taunted in foster homes as a way to excuse the savagery of the behavior of these fine upstanding black men.

to 12:15Are you you sure about the panel 'guests'? That would be amazing...I would be so surprised if Wilson would do that at this point...he may well end up being under his own investigation?Michaels and Peterson...what is left to say ? Should be interesting....Best part...everyone is watching and listening !!! Certainly NOT because we value CNN or PZ but just to see if there is more liability out there to go after...

Truly disgusting and you are correct, these types of stories are all too common for the MSM to bother with. They need flash and pizzazz. They need the braindead Zahn mewling about racism. I wonder if those two young white murder victims believed the BS that the 88 and the MSM shovel about peace, love, and anti-white hatred in order for healing to occur?

It has become astoundingly clear over the past 5 years that the press has decided to substitute opinion for fact whenever it chooses. All that matters is the domestic political "meaning" of the story.

After Republicans took over the entire government in 2000, our mass media collectively decided that "we the people" could no longer be trusted with facts and the truth. Everything major news event from that point forward has been edited and sculpted to make public opinion what it "should" be. The success of this method can be seen in the elections of 2006.

Following the various links led me to news of the Witchita Masacre back in 12/00 and the outcry over the lack of MSM coverage. I am surprised that I don't recall this event bc I have an unusual ability to recall everything, including the most banal, except where I put my keys. My point is there seems to be some merit to those who postulate there is a doubble standard in the MSM. I prefer to stay away from purely racist responses but I am curious why the MSM seems to bury black on white crime. Thoughts?

To 2:17Thank you. What goes without saying too often goes unsaid, especially on this blog, where naked racism is beginning to appear, and where in recent posts the double standard has been as often practiced as combatted.

To 3:11I'm new to this and when reviewing my response I somehow lost it.

My question in its most simple form is: Why does the MSM steer a wide berth around even the most heinous b on w crime yet conversely won't let go of even a perceived injustice to a black by a white?

As for being PC, guilty. I am familiar with The Bell Curve and my nearly 35 years of work experience are enough for me to agree with the basic premise of the book. I am a business owner and have worked at a Sr. level in corporate America. I have first-hand knowledge of promoting less-qualified minorities to some of the highest levels so the picture in our annual report wouldn't be lilly white. (fortune 100 compay) The competition for "qualified" black student applicants by colleges is nothing compared to the competition by business in the hiring of the few exceptional minority graduates. I can also tell you the cost of defending an obviously baseless EEOC complaint is around $25K.

Does anyone know if a homeowners or umbrella policy is paying any of the defense costs? I recall that Clinton had a policy that paid some amount in the Paula Jones case. Maybe because this is a criminal case there would be reason to deny coverage. Regardless, the legal bills should cease and the attorney's should be willing to wait for the certain payday from the civil suits.

Anon said, "White man shot, burned, white woman raped over several days and killed, all by three black men in Knoxville, Tn...Now, there is a hate crime."

But if the headline just said, "Man shot, burned, woman raped over several days and killed by three suspects in Knoxville" that would not be a hate crime? Burning and raping is not hateful enough, you gotta key in on skin color?

KC, I have come of the belief that talking heads like Zahn each need their own personal blogger to keep them in line when it comes to the facts of the stories they report. Last year, I took it upon myself to become the personal blogger of Greta Van Susteren because she was treating this Duke Lacrosse case like a happy-go-lucky infotainment case while mistating the known facts. I wrote her and informed of it and we two have gone back and forth, but I am on her tail now and everytime she breaches the facts of this case. When she misreported the birth of the accuser's baby back in December, I had to really let her have it then! It just makes me mad.

If Zahn had her own blogger to set her straight like this, I bet she might start to shape up. I invite you to visit http://blogontherecord.blogspot.com and see for yourself an example of what I am talking about and I encourage others to pick one of these anchors or talking heads and commit yourself to the quality of their punditism. We do not have to sit back and put up with this wishwash! Let's fight!!

The media does not bury black on white crime just as it doesn’t bury Polish on Italian crime or anything else. The basic rational to coverage of anything is “newsworthiness”.

The fact is that violent crime is all too common, no matter who commits it. Common does not equal newsworthy. You could easily see this if you saw the caseload of your local cops and the DA’s office. Compare that with the number of stories you see about crime and you’ll realize that most are never covered. Only the most horrible or different ones get covered. If all were covered, your new3paper would be 300 pages every day and the local TV news would take up 3 hours. On a national news level, the percentage of crimes covered becomes miniscule.

Initially, the Duke hoax had all the elements of an interesting story, making it newsworthy. It involved a college with a good reputation. It involved a college sports team (if it had involved the basketball team, the coverage would have tripled). It involved students from comfortable homes supposedly committing an horrific crime – group rape. All those combined to make it newsworthy.

Compare that with the unfounded charges against Kobe Bryant. It was newsworthy because it involved a superstar athlete. In that case he was black and the complainant white. The skin color didn’t make it newsworthy. The fame of the accused did. The OJ thing was the same. If it had been Bill the accountant accused of killing his ex-wife and some guy, odds are you’d have never heard of it. It might have gotten some local coverage, but that would be it.

The Duke coverage quieted down after the initial flurry. That is normal due to “news cycles”. Under normal circumstances, it would have died until the trial. Then coverage would have picked up. Any verdict would get the most coverage.

This story did not follow the normal pattern. The families of the accused could afford good lawyers. Those lawyers used the release of information (Public Relations – my business) in court filings which raised questions about the conduct of the DA. That increased the interest of the MSM. All that time bloggers like KCJ had been covering it, providing the MSM with a wealth of data to mine.

Now the story has completely changed to coverage of the DA’s actions. Just Google “duke rape” or “nifong”. Click on the News tab; Sort by Date and that becomes abundantly clear. The reason that’s become huge again is uniqueness, and apparent blattentness, of the DA’s actions – constantly pushed by the PR efforts of the defendant’s lawyers.

Johnboy, thanks for your comment, however you are wrong. Celebrities not withstanding, the MSM focuses predominately on anything smelling of white on black.

Tell me, what was so unnewsworthy of the Wichita Murders? They were grisly and heinous, yet they were squelched outside of the local area. And trust me, there are plenty more where the Wichita murders came from. We are told a fraction of the truth regarding inter-racial brutality.

So, I will post the last word on this mess. What we have learned. We have once again been reminded that rape is a horrible, degrading crime which all men and others of goodwill should stand against. Even false allegations of made by a sick, addicted prostitute must be investigated fairly by a honest legal system. We have learned that those who work hard must redouble their efforts to protect the products of their hard work. There are many vultures that want to make a meal of your labor rather than call up self determination and produce their own. We have once again seen feminist are very short sighted and boiling with self hate. We have learned to stand up to injustice from weak men with to much power, like Mr. Nifong. And sadly we have learned that Black People would rather live out a lie than stand as individuals and search for the truth. They may not have the innate ability to discern truth.

The first and last time I watched Zahn was on 9/11. She was such an incredible airhead. I was in shock that any news organization would employ her. I don't watch network news and haven't done so since the early 70's. Whenever my father saw Walter Cronkite on tv he would yell , 'They let the gas bag out again!" So I haven't kept track of the apparent decline. Is it really this bad?

3:16 - "New England School of Law, professor. Obviously another place to beware of sending your kids to school."

I just told my husband tonight, that even if Duke offered one of our kids, a full-ride (and I mean totally) I wouldn't send my child there. Now I add New England. Good to know where NOT to have your kids apply.

Paula Zahn is just another mouthpiece for the mentality that tells you people with five days notice that a massive hurricane is descending on a below-sea level town bear new responsibility for their own safety and security. The story? Michael Brown and George Bush (and not America's Mayor, the Honorable Ray Nagin) were responsible. Remember, as we have so clearly learned, homicidal Muslims (practioners of the "religion of peace") were not responsible for 9-11, rather, the story was that the American government failed to prevent the attacks. The 9-11 commission was called to investigate the blame for the attacks, and somehow managed to pin it on walkie-talkies and bureaucratic rivalries. Anyone think to look into the whole crazy Muslims killing people again theory? No, the MSM tells you that it was President Bush's fault in failing to prevent the attacks.

The way that the MSM/left handles race relations is the equivalent of saying the U.S. Coast Guard failed to rescue several hundred people just south of Greenland in 1912 who had a little run-in with an iceberg. CNN would report that the U.S. Coast Guard (and not the White Star Line) bears full responsibility for the presence of the racist iceberg, the premeditated depth of the Atlantic Ocean, and therefore, the deaths of 600 people.

This case is affirmative action in the courtroom. Classic case of holding minorities to a lesser standard of proof and a lower amount of responsibility for THE CRIME of filing a false police report.

"Something happened in that house that night." Sweet! I was always hoping that I would live to see an important Constitutional Amendment in my lifetime. Apparently we have changed the criminal standard from "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" to "black people think something happened (but can offer no proof)!" and we can now prosecute felony charges on that (and no other) basis! Wonderland indeed.

I just emailed Paula Zahn and suggested that she know ALL the facts before Tuesday nights show, and that "something must have happened in that house" does not constitute evidence. I suggest that everyone who has not already done so email her and let her know that her shoddy journalism will not be tolerated.

The best way to deal with the Paula Zahns, Nancy Graces, and Wendy Murphys is simply to ignore and disreagard them. Paula Zahn is CNN's version of "journalism lite" (her smirking, ill-prepared and oftimes illiterate handling of the 9/11 tragedy was a preface to this sort of programming.) She lacks character and integrity; why waste your time?

January 6, 1964, was a long day for Martin Luther King Jr. He spent the morning seated in the reserved section of the Supreme Court, listening as lawyers argued New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, a landmark case rising out of King's crusade against segregation in Alabama. The minister was something of an honored guest: Justice Arthur Goldberg quietly sent down a copy of Kings account of the Montgomery bus boycott, "Stride Toward Freedom," asking for an autograph. That night King retired to his room at the Willard Hotel. There FBI bugs reportedly picked up 14 hours of party chatter, the clinking of glasses and the sounds of illicit ***--including King's cries of "I'm f--ing for God" and "I'm not a Negro tonight!"

Certainly PZ and CNN have done a terrible job reporting on this case but one fact is certain and proves that the 3 guys are innocent. The bathroom in the house is too small for 3 large guys and the accuser to be involved in any kind of struggle.

Interesting to read about PZ on the Duke case - I just posted on my blog about tonight's episode where she totally attacked a representative from CAIR - the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Why CNN couldn't find an articulate person of color to cover features on race is beyond me...

Blog Awards

About Me

I am from Higgins Beach, in Scarborough, Maine, six miles south of Portland. After spending five years as track announcer at Scarborough Downs, I left to study fulltime in graduate school, where my advisor was Akira Iriye. I have a B.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard, and an M.A. from the University of Chicago. At Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, I teach classes in 20th century US political, constitutional, and diplomatic history; in 2007-8, I was Fulbright Distinguished Chair for the Humanities at Tel Aviv University.

Book

Comments Policy

(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.

(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.

(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.

(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.

"From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review